Thursday, July 31, 2014

Welby: "Israel has the same legitimate rights to peace and security as any other state"

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has issued a statement on the Israel/Gaza conflict:

“You can't look at the pictures coming from Gaza and Israel without your heart breaking. We must cry to God and beat down the doors of heaven and pray for peace and justice and security. Only a costly and open-hearted seeking of peace between Israeli and Palestinian can protect innocent people, their children and grand children, from ever worse violence.

“My utmost admiration is for all those involved in the humanitarian efforts on the ground, not least the medical team and staff at Al Ahli Arab Hospital. Providing relief and shelter for those displaced is a tangible expression of our care and concern, and I encourage Church of England parishes and dioceses, as well as the wider Communion, to pray for them and support the Diocese of Jerusalem's emergency appeal.

“While humanitarian relief for those civilians most affected is a priority, especially women and children, we must also recognise that this conflict underlines the importance of renewing a commitment to political dialogue in the wider search for peace and security for both Israeli and Palestinian. The destructive cycle of violence has caused untold suffering and threatens the security of all.

“For all sides to persist with their current strategy, be it threatening security by the indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilian areas or aerial bombing which increasingly fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, is self-defeating. The bombing of civilian areas, and their use to shelter rocket launches, are both breaches of age old customs for the conduct of war. Further political impasse, acts of terror, economic blockades or sanctions and clashes over land and settlements, all increase the alienation of those affected. Populations condemned to hopelessness or living under fear will be violent. Such actions create more conflict, more deaths and will in the end lead to an even greater disaster than the one being faced today. The road to reconciliation is hard, but ultimately the only route to security. It is the responsibility of all leaders to protect the innocent, not only in the conduct of war but in setting the circumstances for a just and sustainable peace.

“While it is acceptable to question and even disagree with particular policies of the Israeli government, the spike in violence and abuse against Jewish communities here in the UK is simply unacceptable. We must not allow such hostility to disrupt the good relations we cherish among people of all faiths. Rather we must look at ways at working together to show our concern and support for those of goodwill on all sides working for peace.”

It is a carefully-worded equilibrium, offering compassion and understanding to the peoples of Israel and Gaza, and calling on both the Israeli Government and Hamas to pause, reflect, do penance and make reparation. And that requires humility: political dialogue requires peace, and peace demands justice and security.

Many will find Archbishop Justin's words sapless and vexing: an irritatingly Anglican via media which offers succour to both sides while reproaching them equally for their humanitarian failures and transgressions of the "age old customs" of Just War theory. But there is nothing in the Archbishop's lament to which Israel could reasonably object: the bombing of schools and hospitals and the killing of children is indeed appalling. But if civilians are being used to shield rocket launches and if mosques are being used to conceal stockpiles of deadly ordnance, what is one supposed to do?

Israel is blamed by many of the newspapers, broadcasters and intelligentsia for slaughtering the children Gaza. In truth, Hamas is killing its own. What kind of government hides its aggression behind the smiles of babies? What kind of leadership cloaks its terrorism beneath the innocence and laughter of its children?

But before you leap on the Archbishop's inept even-handedness or condemn him for his maddening moral equivalence, consider the paragraph on his website which follows this statement, for it tells us: "He fully accepts that Israel has the same legitimate rights to peace and security as any other state and to self-defence within humanitarian law when faced with an external threat."

This is unequivocal, but it is an offensive dogma which neither Hamas nor Fatah will accept. To them and their defenders, followers and supporters, Israel has no legitimacy and so no rights: jihad must be waged until every last Jew is cleansed from the land they call Palestine. To Archbishop Justin, this is a moral abhorrence.

Of course, all Christians prefer peace and long for justice and reconciliation. But if Israel has the same rights to self-defence as any other state, it has a moral right and an ethical obligation to wage a "war on terror". When did you last hear an Anglican bishop, let alone the Archbishop of Canterbury, support Israel's historic and legal rights? When did you least hear a bishop of the Church of England advocate militarised self-defence as the only rational path to peace when confronted by murderous Jew-haters who conceal their bombs below hospitals, their rockets in clinics, and their guns and grenades in schools and mosques?

The destructive cycle of violence must end. Archbishop Justin yearns and prays for the peace of Jerusalem.

72 Comments:

I completely agree with the AoC's analysis, unfortunately and I think he probably knows this, Hamas' strategy is not self-defeating.

For public consumption our ++ must keep up the pretense that Hamas wants peace and freedom. But most of us really know that's not the case.

Hamas, as Your Grace, rightly points out simply does not recognise the right of Israel to exist. So with this as their aim, their strategy of winning hearts and minds is gradually achieving the delegitimisation of Israel's existence in the eyes of the world.

Hamas are wilfully sacrificing their infants on Israel's altar of security.

I would suggest this idolatory has more incommon with the ancient sacrificial practices associated with the worship of "Molech" than our god. It seems Canaanite practises are alive and well in our modern age.

Only a costly and open-hearted seeking of peace between Israeli and Palestinian can protect innocent people, their children and grand children, from ever worse violence.

Very difficult to envisage a way of breaking the perennial cycle of violence. Islamic eschatology implies that the resurrection will not come until the Muslims exterminate the Jews. This sentiment is enshrined in the Hamas Charter. Introduction: "Our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave..." Article 28: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims..."

Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV broadcast a sermon July 25 reaffirming the Hamas ideology that according to Islam, it is Muslim destiny to eradicate the Jews:-

Our belief about fighting you [Jews] is that we will exterminate you, until the last one, and we will not leave of you, even one. For you are the usurpers of the land, foreigners, mercenaries of the present and of all times. Look at history, brothers: Wherever there were Jews, they spread corruption... (Quran): "They spread corruption in the land, and Allah does not like corrupter's." Their belief is destructive. Their belief fulfils the prophecy. Our belief is in obtaining our rights on our land, implementing Shari'ah (Islamic law) under Allah's sky.

Regardless of Israeli compromises, there can be no peace unless Islam undergoes a reformation, recognises Israel's right to exist and repudiates persecution of Jews. There is no realistic prospect of that. Archbishop Welby's assertion that the destructive cycle of violence threatens the security of us all may well be prophetic. The Islamic threat is to all Jews wherever they may be living and anti-semitic incidents are on the rise.

When did you last hear an Anglican bishop, let alone the Archbishop of Canterbury, support Israel's historic and legal rights?

In all fairness, Your Grace, the Anglican clergy are hardly alone in their lack of discernment. How many churches can honestly claim that their clergy have steadfastly upheld Israel’s rights, without ever slipping into the Hamas propaganda trap?

@Jay BeeYes, unfortunately the need to exterminate the Jews is a core doctrine of Islam. If a Muslim rejects it, then he's an apostate, so there's no possibility of a reformation. The reformers would be beheaded as soon as they made their opinions known

The bottom line is that the Muslims are required to exterminate the Jews whether the state of Israel exists or not. Any Muslim who denies this is simply lying to the kuffar (taqiyya).

Once they've destroyed Israel, and murdered the Jews of continental Europe, the Muslims will then come after the last refuges of Jews in the Anglosphere.

"good relations we cherish among people of all faiths." A small point, perhaps, but we have this concept of "all faiths", multifaith, diversity of world-views ... but does everyone? Including Muslims? Or do some - Muslims - just see humanity in terms of those people who know the truth, people within reality (themselves), and the (less important) rest, who are firmly outside, and maybe don't merit the same consideration?

Or do some - Muslims - just see humanity in terms of those people who know the truth, people within reality (themselves), and the (less important) rest, who are firmly outside, and maybe don't merit the same consideration?

The polarities you mention are known as

Ummah versus Kuffarand Dar al-Islam versus Dar al-Harb

'Harbis' and 'Mushriks' are varieties of kuffar who are particularly high on the hit list

The bombing of civilian areas, and their use to shelter rocket launches, are both breaches of age old customs for the conduct of war.

Idiocy. First of all, the Israelis went out of their way to get people to leave the area where the fighting would occur. Second, the fighting occurred in those locations because Hamas chose the locations to fight. Third, if you violate a protected status for military advantage, then the protected status is forfeit, and the area becomes a legitimate target. Any consequences fall on the head of the violator. You can't put an Anti-aircraft gun on a hospital and then say "You can't bomb my hospital." And only an idiot would look on the rubble and say "How barbaric to have bombed a hospital."

What is important here is that there is no equivalence between the IDF and Hamas. There is no equivalence between random terror rockets and putting a bomb into a mosque because it is being used for military purposes.

": "He fully accepts that Israel has the same legitimate rights to peace and security as any other state and to self-defence within humanitarian law when faced with an external threat."

At some point the question really has to be asked whether there can ever be a legitimate Palestinian State that satisfies both sides and brings peace and security. Is the 'Two-State' solution realistic and for how long should it be pursued? And what are the alternatives?

Only a costly and open-hearted seeking of peace between Israeli and Palestinian...

What does this mean exactly? What is the cost that must be paid? Who has closed his heart to seeking peace? If you want peace in Israel, then first you must find a Palestinian partner who wants peace.

... can protect innocent people, their children and grand children, from ever worse violence.

I would not subject my people to a present risk of death in order to secure some nebulous hope of peace in the future. Until the Palestinians prove they actually want peace, they can stay alienated behind the wall.

There is no realistic two-state solution. The Israelis simply won't give up security control of the West Bank to a hostile power. A state that doesn't possess a monopoly on violence isn't a state. So that whole idea is a non-starter. The Israelis won't give what the Palestinians want, and the Palestinians won't accept what the Israelis will give.

There are three paths to peace.

1. The Israelis force a population transfer.

2. The Palestinians kill off the Jews.

3. The Palestinians get exhausted and give up and submit to Israeli rule.

The Israelis are pursuing the third option by default. That means pressure on the Palestinians. What else would you have them do?

If Hamas stopped endangering their women and children by lobbing rockets into Israel, and Israel stopped retaliating and both sides got new leaders with a fresh outlook, then the UN could get them to the negotiating table. The hatred on each side needs to be dissipated and turned into acceptance of a two state solution in order that rational debate can start. It seems that neither wants to though. They're both as stubborn as each-other.

I must say Jon Snow on Ch 4 News last night gave a Hamas communications spokesman a good grilling, asking why Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel putting their women and children in danger, but the stubborn b***** wouldn't have it, kept saying they weren't and circumventing the questions. The interview became quite heated.

Both sides need to visualise what fantastic things they can achieve in the area if there were peace. All those tunnels could be turned into a bustling underground tube railway between the two states. Architecturally each side can build its own wonders that would attract tourism and marvel.

Oh! and the western banks that launder money for Hamas and also Hezbollah should be fined more than $32,500!!!

I refer back to my comments in an earlier thread about the Ezekiel prophecy. In chapters 37-39 we read of God's ancient promise to scatter Israel among the nations, after many days restore them to their promised land, and then when the armies of the nations surround them, to unleash megadeath. Armageddon.

The first 2 thirds of the prophecy have demonstrably already happened in history.

There will be no 'after the Arabs/Muslims have destroyed Israel'. Its the End.

Er ... no. It's a violation of the Laws of War to use a protected status for military advantage. During the gunfight in Mogadishu in 1993, the Somalis stood women holding children in the middle of the street while men fired rifles between their legs. The US soldiers shot the combatants without concern for the women and children. They had no choice.

The dead women and children were the responsibility of the Somali fighters.

The US Military is by law not allowed to enforce the Law inside the US. But to answer your question.

In 1915 the Germans sank the SS Lusitania, killing 1500 people in the process. The German submarine was absolutely justified in sinking that ship because the British gov't was secretly using it to transport war material. And yet it wasn't wise to sink the ship. It led to American entry into the war. That strategic cost wasn't worth sinking one ship. So the answer to you question is ...it depends. What is the cost? What is the alternative?

The US soldiers in Somalia were fighting for their lives. In that case, I would expect a soldier to fire through shields because he had a greater responsibility to his mission and his comrades.

Thanks for clarifying. Given the increasing ruthlessness of Islamists there must be a possibility that human shields will be used in Europe and the US,in which case our law enforcement agencies are going to have some tough calls to make.

The war that Israel is fighting is not of her making. Hamas are not an honorable foe, but are disgusting cowards who hide in & use schools, hospitals, mosques as weapons dumps and who use civilians as human shields. Nor are they heroic 'freedom fighters'. They had an opportunity to live in peace and to make Gaza flourish when Israel left. But oh no, they couldn't possibly do that! The result is the conflict we see today. And I hope Israel succeeds in winning and winning thoroughly. Destroy the network, destroy the tunnels and end the attacks against Israeli civilians. And as an added bonus overthrow this fanatical totalitarian regime.

Israel does not have a volunteer army, but a 'citizen' one in which every man and woman has to join by law at the age of 18. They are not war criminals, they are the young men and women, in their prime, who should be doing stuff that every teenager does; studying, partying, having a good time, getting married, enjoying life, but instead they have to take a different path and are fighting for civilization itself. We should support them.

How one yearns for a lost world of what is right and what is wrong. Welby of course couldn’t do it, but a brief statement of ‘Hamas, stop firing rockets into Israel and the shelling will stop’ would have sufficed once, together with ‘fill in your tunnels too, and stop scheming to raid Jewish families’.

But can he turn his back on that ‘greater understanding between Anglicanism and Islam in the UK’ or whatever the guff is known by. His naïve predecessors should have kept Allah in the UK at arm’s length. Too bloody late now…

Within the tight political limits constraining anyone in the post of Archbishop of Canterbury, this represents a brave, wise and balanced statement. So yes, he has to present the case in a balanced form, does he not ?

But, many of us know, that to bring about peace, it takes two to tango, but one party is not interested in dancing, as they seek war, at any price. Until that attitude changes, it will represent an insurmountable obstacle.

The heart earns for peace, but the head says it is unattainable, at least not until both sides earnestly yearn for peace, equally.

David H “Within the tight political limits constraining anyone in the post of Archbishop of Canterbury, this represents a brave, wise and balanced statement. So yes, he has to present the case in a balanced form, does he not ?”

Really cannot accept that at all. In his position as premier churchman of the country, he can say what he will. Any constraints of the office are in his own imagination, if he thinks he has any.

The only spoiler is that thanks to the reformation, he would be unable to excommunicate Cameron in glorious Beckett style when the latters furious letter arrives at Lambeth palace....

Carl @ 13.13 suggests, inter alia, 'The Israelis force a population transfer.' This being one of three possible paths to peace.

Why, congratulations. If your suggestion is not merely ironic, a PT is indeed the path to peace.

And it should not stop there. Ultimately, if Israel is to survive and grow beyond its current population size, it will be necessary for Israel to incorporate the West Bank into a single political entity of a greater Israel. Given the very high birthrate of 3.3 in Israel, a population of 15 to 20 million can be anticipated in the next fifty years. This assumption assumes continuation of the current frenetic level of unprotected sexual activity.

But what of the existing residents? It is quite clear that economically and militarily the Palestinians are totally overwhelmed by Israel and would appear to have no prospect of closing the gap. At some point Palestinian leadership needs to recognise this fact, draw accurate conclusions and suggest the obvious remedy - a large scale PT out of the West Bank, and hopefully, East Jerusalem.

It is in the interest of Israel that this should happen, sooner rather than later. Israel's friends in the West could provide financial assistance for the proposed PT. One can thus see that if common sense prevails, both parties in the current dispute could agree on an equitable outcome. Unfortunately, given their customary intransigence, it seems unlikely that the Palestinians will ever concede. But they should, and adjoining Arab states could greatly improve their own circumstances by offering assistance. After all, the numbers involved are not overwhelming.

Come, come Mr Inspector @ 21.42, let's have no more of your disgraceful Romish slurs. You may think, '...that the Archbishop of Canterbury is in the British government’s pocket', but I couldn't possibly comment.

I wasn't recommending it. I was merely accepting the fact that it would work. Just like killing all the Jews would work. I would have thought juxtaposing those two options would have made that inference obvious.

Has Israel won? Has Hamas capitulated? This is what Y Net News is saying about the three-day cease-fire agreement:

In what seems to be a win for Israel, the statement said that "forces on the ground will remain in place" during the truce, implying that Israeli ground forces will not withdraw.

Tunnels have been at the heart of Israel's Gaza offensive, and are currently one of the central stumbling blocks to a ceasefire, with Israel demanding forces remain in Gaza to take out the tunnel system which threatens Israel's southern communities and army bases.

However, though forces are still on the ground it is far from certain they will be allowed to use explosives to demolish the tunnels.

Carl @ 22.29, well if a practical solution that may bring a lasting peace is juxtaposed with an outcome we are trying to avoid, how does that help the debate?

One can posit a Population Transfer in these terms in order to give it legitimacy.

The settlement in the Middle East and Levant that followed the collapse of the Ottoman Empire has itself collapsed. At an earlier point in this settlement, specifically the Treaty of Lausanne 1923, it was resolved that Turkey and Greece exchange populations of Turks and Greeks isolated on the wrong side of the Aegean. Since that PT, there has been lasting peace in the Aegean.

Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are all states that came in to existence or were mooted at the same time. There are continuing tensions and factions within Syria and Iraq that reject the settlement imposed on them. A new Sunni Arab state is emerging under the aegis of ISIS, and nobody is prepared to stop that happening. The Kurd are another matter.

Israel in its current form is dysfunctional, but that is not a reason to dismantle Israel. We need to offer help to Israel so that it becomes a viable state at peace with its neighbours within secure borders. We can agree completely that a two state solution will never work, given the nature of two separate population centres comprising the proposed Palestinian micro-state.

We in the West also owe the Palestinians a peaceful and secure future. In 70 years nobody has offered them a viable option to achieve that goal. As all else has failed, its time to try a solution that has brought peace previously, the PT.

1. The surrounding Arab states don't want the Palestinians. They don't even particularly like the Palestinians except as a political weapon against the Israelis. Besides, there is not a neighboring economy that could support them. And you are dreaming if you think the Gulf states will either a) take them in or b) pay for them once they are no longer a useful foil to use against the Israelis. So the receiving country would have to be forced to take them and that means a war.

2. People only leave because staying means death. So someone would have to terrorize them into leaving. Are you expecting the IDF to do that? They are a professional military in the Western mold. Tell them to slaughter and rape and they will say "No." Then they will suggest that you go do something biologically impossible to yourself. So who is going to provide the incentive to flee?

3. Isn't this exactly the kind of behavior that has given ISIS such a bad reputation?

In some parallel universe, you may convince several million people to simply get up and move peacefully to another country. Your example of Turkey and Greece was a de facto exchange. The Greeks in Turkey fled with the defeated Greek army fearing for their lives. The remnant was given no choice. The Greeks expelled Turks in retaliation. It was all driven by fear and the expectation of slaughter for those who remained. That's how population transfer actually works. We shouldn't be a part of that.

Yes. I know. We looked the other way and let the Croatians expel the Serbs. It was a ruthless way to end a ruthless war. And quite frankly a lot of people thought the Serbs deserved it. But it still required hard men to do things we wouldn't want our soldiers doing. And it was still something our gov't should not have been party to - even by tacitly giving permission.

Unless there's been a change recently, the Palestinians living in Lebanon are still kept in camps, aren't they? As I understand it, they're not allowed to get jobs or earn money in the Lebanese economy. The Palestinian children aren't even allowed to attend Lebanese schools.

The West doesn't owe the Palestinians a damn thing. The Arabs made this catastrophe for themselves and everyone else. It is rooted in Muslim rejection of infidels ruling over Muslim land, and Arab humiliation over their inability to compete with the West. Israel is the Crusader state reborn - the dagger in the heart of Islam. It is living breathing proof of Western power and Muslim failure, and they will never abide it.

That more than anything else is the genesis of the conflict. The West does not owe any reparations for wounded Muslim pride. It's their problem to deal with. But they don't get to employ the solution of killing Jews to assuage their bent egos.

In the meantime, here’s an interesting Israeli blueprint for a demilitarised Gaza Strip, to remain under Palestinian control, though with Fatah in charge rather than Hamas. Is it feasible? My guess is that it probably comes as close to being acceptable to both sides as anything else we’ve heard about so far.

On 'population transfer' I remember a radio 4 documentary 2 or 3 years ago with Alan Yentob, a descendant of Iraqi Jews. 140,000 Jews were brutally expelled from Baghdad in 1948 with public lynchings and total property theft. Just like ISIS innMosul today.

Interestingly, one of the survivors' descendants said how the Jewish population of Baghdad had been living there just fine for centuries. The turning point, they said, had been the translation of Mein Kampf into Arabic.

Only time I've heard the BBC refer to the Nazi/Muslim axis.

It seems clear to me that the Palestinians are being used as a tool against Israel and that the only 'solution' the Arab/Muslim world will accept is a Final Solution. This should be put to the leftist useful idiots, MSM and Muslim fellow travellers more vigorously.

Your Grace, my respect for the latest incumbent of the throne of Augustine of Canterbury continues to rise. Let us hope his wise and balanced words are taken to heart by those of the media who drive the anti-Israel agenda in this country.

Yes, indeed. As I alluded to at 18.25. An ++Canterbury can not just speak out from the purely Christian ethical point of view without weighing the political ramifications first, as he is undoubtedly, intrinsically, both a part of , and apart from, the British establishment, so he has a subtle role to perform, I think.

The wisdom of his classic Anglican Via Media statement is that whilst deploring the suffering and fear on both sides, he does not tread the typical C of E left of centre path by pointing only to the munitions travelling westwards, but also clearly reminds us that " indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilian areas" involves those travelling eastwards, into Israel, as well.

Interestingly though, and very much as a side issue, I wonder what the underlying argument is that props up his statement, "humanitarian relief for those civilians most affected is a priority, especially for women and children". Children, yes of course are a priority, but how Archbishop, when you appear to be a champion of treating both sexes as if they were not merely equal, which few doubt, but the same, are women to be given priority over men ? Is the Archbishop proposing that women should benefit from the advantages from both the previous assumptions, and the emerging ones ? If so does this smack of half of humanity having it all ? But that is, as I said, in this context a lesser consideration.

1)You say: The surrounding Arab states don't want the Palestinians. Correct, but then the fragmentation of many of these surrounding Sunni Arab states, such as Libya, Syria and Iraq into militarily weak tribal fiefdoms creates opportunities for resettling a transported Sunni population like the Palestinians. Jordan, for example, is already more Palestinian than Bedouin.

And, ‘So the receiving country would have to be forced to take them and that means a war.’

There’s a war on already across the Middle East. The recipient nations don’t need to be forced, there is the possibility of incentives. Carrots, not sticks, in other words.

2)You say, ‘People only leave because staying means death’. A condition manifestly being met today. Many Palestinians are living in UN shelters and their homes have been destroyed. Enter the parallel universe and think laterally. If you and your family were in that position, would you reject an offer of resettlement outside Gaza?

You also say, ‘Your example of Turkey and Greece was a de facto exchange’. The man who implemented the Treaty mandated part of that exchange, Fridtjof Nansen, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

what's your take on Israel's expansion of settlements in the West Bank? That's one major issue where Israel seems to be erring. What's the justification?

From you familiarity with a regular poster but new ID-tag you are obviously a regular in another frock - not the first time you've dunnit either I would say.

But you question seems to ignore that the so called 'West Bank' is actually an intrusion from Trans-Jordan when Israel, as part of a peace deal accepted re-drawing of the present map in 1967 leaving it as a semi-autonomous territory of Arabs and Jews. It is not part of Jordan or under direct control of Israel.

And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6 [ESV])

frankly there will be no peace in the World until the second coming. If the Archbishop bothered to read the Bible he'd know that.

The trouble is, he's of the wishy washy evanjellyfish grouping that says God loves everyone & everyone only has to choose one of the great Abrahamic faiths to be OK with God. At least that is the impression one gets.

It would be nice to have a John the Baptist type of ABC who would be prepared to tell politicians their actions were evil, even at the cost of his own head. Indeed, it would be nice if any of the bishops of the CoE were of such a type.

Perhaps the trouble is that the CoE are so intent on being nice they have lost sight of the danger of being like Laodicea!

what's your take on Israel's expansion of settlements in the West Bank

Idealistic western notions to the contrary, the Israelis are never going to give up control of the West Bank. The pre-67 border is strategically indefensible. So the settlements -especially along the Jordan River - are designed to cement that reality into place. I know there are plenty of people who think this whole conflict would just go away of the Palestinians were given their own state. That isn't true and the Israelis are not going to sacrifice a dearly won position on that kind of fool's hope.

The Israelis will never allow a hostile military presence on the West Bank. Ever. That's the beginning of understanding about this conflict. The settlements serve to create facts on the ground and a present those idealists with a reverse population transfer problem that cannot be solved. So they are not a mistake. They are a necessary long term achievement to sustain the Israeli future against those who would 'solve' the crisis by sacrificing Israeli security.

Who might have won a peace prize is not relevant to what actually happened in Turkey in 1923. The Greek Army invaded Turkey and was defeated. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks in Turkey fled to Greece with the retreating Greek Army. The vast majority of Greeks exchanged were already in Greece when the 'exchange' took place. They didn't leave because they suddenly decided they would rather live North of the Bosporus. They left because they feared being killed. The remnant - those few who couldn't get out - were ordered to leave without their property. The Greeks expelled Turks in retaliation, and to create some space for the refugees in Greece.

The whole thing was effected by men with guns ordering people to leave, and there was no doubt what failure to comply would mean. When the Germans did this to the Poles, we called it a war crime.

You think you can bribe surrounding nations into importing political instability? The Jordanians received 300,000 refugees from Kuwait in 1991 only because they held Jordanian passports. The Jordanian gov't is already concerned about becoming the de facto alternate Palestinian state and now you want them to accept six times that many just from Gaza? How much money do you think would be needed to integrate that mass of people into the Jordanian economy? It ain't never gonna happen.

Practically speaking, though,the only destination for population transfer from Gaza is Egypt. There isn't going to be a two-million man march thru Israel proper and the West Bank to Jordan. That also is never going to happen. So what you are really suggesting is moving the population of Gaza to El Arish and dumping them on the Egyptians for a gov't bribe. If I lived in a refugee camp in Gaza, I would prefer it to a tent city in El Arish run by the Egyptians. Because once I am in El Arish, I am invisible.

You will notice how much the world cared about the ejection of Palestinians from Kuwait.

So you are basing the credibility of your proposed solution on the fact that Stalin did the same thing to the Germans and no one did anything about it?

Leave aside that it was done for vengeance. Leave aside that it was done to compensate Poland for land the Soviets were taking from Poland. Leave aside the fact that no one was going to fight the Russian Army in 1945 over the fate of Germans.

Have you not noticed a trend in the kind of gov'ts that do this sort of thing?

The Alan Yentob 2011 documentary 'The Last Jews in Iraq' is sadly no longer available on iplayer but lots about it on line.

A third of Baghdad's population was apparently Jewish and they ran all sorts of things.

No wonder the country went to buggery after they were brutally expelled. Elohim's promise to bless those who bless and curse those who curse Abraham'seed by the promise still stands. Will someone please tell Obama and the EU?

Carl @ 13.03 says, 'So you are basing the credibility of your proposed solution on the fact that Stalin did the same thing to the Germans and no one did anything about it?'

I'm making a different point. At 12.41 you said, 'When the Germans did this to the Poles, we called it a war crime.'

At 12.54 I pointed out that when the Red Army evicted millions of Germans from settlements east of the Oder-Neise line, and they had been there long before the Third Reich emerged, that deportation was not deemed to be a war crime. In part, it was policy.

You then say, 'Leave aside that it was done for vengeance. Leave aside that it was done to compensate Poland for land the Soviets were taking from Poland. Leave aside the fact that no one was going to fight the Russian Army in 1945 over the fate of Germans.'

The fact is that during the period 1944-50, both before and after the Potsdam Agreement to which the US was signatory, up to 12 million Germans were deported from Eastern Europe.

The US itself has therefore been party to a policy of population transfer.

At 13.03 you say, 'Have you not noticed a trend in the kind of gov'ts that do this sort of thing?'

On populatoon transfer, Peter Hitchens (who is much underestimsted as a 20th century historian and has been in Gaza) has written a fair deal. Like Carl,,he mentions that there have been many forced population transfers in the 20th century, the Israel/Palestinian one being not so unique in many ways.

We don't hear so much about the whites forced out of Zimbabwe,do we? As a skin cancer doctor ( white Africans have a high risk) I have met a number of these good folks and heard tales of theft and murder.

I was in Galwsy last year and Scotland last werk, including Culloden. What about the Potato Famine and Highland Clearances?

I also have a Christian Palestinian friend whose family were forced out. I can't tell him I'm happy about that. But I do believe in Israel as the Jewish homeland, for both Biblical and geoploitical/ justice reasons.

If people think the Jews should be exterminated like Ahmadinejad etc then let them say so openly. But let them not talk flaming cat's bollercks about 'the right if return' as if that wouldn't mean the end of Israel.

Carl @ 01.54, I'm pointing out that when Hitler expelled the Poles it was a war crime and when the Red Army expelled the Germans it was Allied policy ratified by treaty (Potsdam). The Western allies, US and UK, had the option of repudiating the expulsion of the Germans but did not do so. The fate of Poland was a greater concern and Churchill was mindful that Britain had gone to war to prevent Poland becoming conquered by fascists only to see the war end with Poland occupied by communists.

Whatever the objections to population transfer, life in Europe has been slightly less complicated with the Germans in one contiguous geographic space; no more Danzig corridors and other sources of friction.

That apart, the problem in the Middle East remains the existence of overlapping claims from nations, tribes and a plethora of religions. It's easy enough to skip nimbly to the nearest high ground, declare moral superiority and announce 'We don't do population exchanges/transfers'.

Well, we did. And the process lead to peace.

If peace is not your priority, let them fight it out, because that's what is happening and you can see it on TV.

It is in the interest of Israel not to have borders on two fronts controlled by intensely hostile populations who are incubators for Muslim extremism. Israel can easily defeat these asymmetric threats but the cost in terms of political capital is becoming very high.

Israeli policy on the West Bank is clearly to increase the Israeli population to the extent that the Palestinians become a minority. That won't work in Gaza. But if the Israelis could cut a deal that enables the Gazans to pack up and move elsewhere, they should try to arrange it. Fortunately there are no Muslim shrines of significance in Gaza, unlike the situation in Jerusalem.

Pack up and move where? You have to find a country that is capable of receiving an influx of 2 million people. You aren't going to bribe any Middle Eastern Arab country into receiving that block of people. There are political implications that money can't address.

Move them how? It won't happen by air or sea. So they have to travel by land. They aren't going East or North. They aren't going through the Negev. The Israelis won't allow it. That means they are going South and West through Sinai. To where? Egypt? Not a snowball's chance in hell is Egypt going to accept responsibility for 2 million indigent Palestinians.

And what would the receiving country do with them after they arrived? What country in the area has excess housing capacity for 2 million people? What are they going to eat? Drink? Don't even ask about work. There isn't any. So assume the Egyptians let the residents of Gaza walk (and I do mean 'walk') into Sinai. Where are they going to live? A tent city. A refugee camp. Why would they agree to that?

The traditional answer is: "Because staying means you die." You still haven't addressed that reality. The people in Gaza have every incentive to stay in Gaza given the reality of the alternatives. So how do you propose making them want to leave?

Carl @ 14.29, large numbers of people do frequently migrate and found new settlements; Israel, and the New World settler states of US, Canada, Australia and NZ are examples. Large numbers of Hispanics from Latin America are currently acting as demographic claimants to the south-western USA, building to a majority in some states over 25-30 years. This of course is a voluntary move whereas a population transfer is mandatory.

Obviously you do not marshall a fleet of buses one afternoon and ship everyone in Gaza out. But over time it can be done. There is no reason why Israel would object to the departure of the Gazans and their passage through Israel under controlled circumstances. Syria is a potential destination, as is Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and even Egypt, which you dismiss. Turkey always has plenty of advice for Israel, may be Erdogan could be embarrassed into assistance. It would be necessary to disperse the Gazan population, it goes without saying no nearby Muslim nation can absorb two millions in one hit.

A grand diplomatic bargain is required to implement such a move. It is hard to see why there would not be many supporters.

The critical thing is to remove a threat on Israel's south-western border so that between Israel and Egypt the Siniai is an unencumbered buffer zone. The prospects for peace in the Middle East are therefore enhanced.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)